Well it wouldn't be the first time that a marvel franchise has ignore the lineage between characters.

We have yet to have any kind of on-screen confirmation that Mystique is Nightcrawler's mother, let alone that she's Rogue's stepmother (or that Nightcrawler and Rogue are supposed to be like siblings). There has been no reference to the connection between Scott and Alex Summers, or Heimdell and Sif.

So yeah, the lineage thing shouldn't be a issue, especially since I doubt most regular moviegoers would know about it right away or at all.

__________________
- "But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."

Well it wouldn't be the first time that a marvel franchise has ignore the lineage between characters.

We have yet to have any kind of on-screen confirmation that Mystique is Nightcrawler's mother, let alone that she's Rogue's stepmother (or that Nightcrawler and Rogue are supposed to be like siblings). There has been no reference to the connection between Scott and Alex Summers, or Heimdell and Sif.

So yeah, the lineage thing shouldn't be a issue, especially since I doubt most regular moviegoers would know about it right away or at all.

Or even more important things like Frigga still seems to be Thor's mother in the MCU, as the nature of his mother is really why he's so attached to Midgard.

-Rhodey as a government-sponsored superhero with the only Iron Man suit currently left in existence?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

At the end of the film Tony says, "I am Iron Man." That implies that he will build more suits. Also, we know he'll be in TA2 and "Tony Stark Will Return" is the last text on screen. Even if Rhodey had the last functioning suit for a hot second, it wouldn't last long because the mechanic will create more.

At the end of the film Tony says, "I am Iron Man." That implies that he will build more suits. Also, we know he'll be in TA2 and "Tony Stark Will Return" is the last text on screen. Even if Rhodey had the last functioning suit for a hot second, it wouldn't last long because the mechanic will create more.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

I heard from someone though that he destroyed ALL of his suits for the sake of spending more time with Pepper and such.

I guess what I'm wondering is that if he starts this film with having more armor suits, what was the point of getting rid of all of the suits that took time and energy to make in Iron Man 3?

I heard from someone though that he destroyed ALL of his suits for the sake of spending more time with Pepper and such.

I guess what I'm wondering is that if he starts this film with having more armor suits, what was the point of getting rid of all of the suits that took time and energy to make in Iron Man 3?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

It was closure for Tony. As he called it, a "Clean Slate". The way I see it, he'll put on a suit if need be, but he doesn't let his tech define who he is, and didn't need the reminder of all his tinkering during an anxiety-ridden period of his life. Detonating the suits was an emotional action on his part, rather than a practical one.

It was closure for Tony. As he called it, a "Clean Slate". The way I see it, he'll put on a suit if need be, but he doesn't let his tech define who he is, and didn't need the reminder of all his tinkering during an anxiety-ridden period of his life. Detonating the suits was an emotional action on his part, rather than a practical one.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Exactly, and one that he could afford to make because he no longer uses the suits as a crutch, as the movie detailed, making it also a practical decision, just not one driven by fear, but of purpose.

Having those suits be nameless design-less drones removes the storyline of Tony being a creative mind who uses his suits and robots as replacement friends, which was kinda the point. And it also would have removed any emotional impact of him getting rid of them for the sake of a real human relationship.

He demonstrated in the film, and double explained it at the end, just because he doesn't have any tech at the moment doesn't mean he can't/won't whip something up as needed in a heartbeat. The first suit in a cave took 3 days. The second suit took what? 5 Hours?

I would not trust anything from Wardell; other sites have pointed out the inconsistency in his methods and claims. First, why would there be a prison break? Marvel Universe is not structured like Batman: they do not fight common criminals, and the villains that are fought, are either dead or in another dimension.
I doubt the Liberators/Kang angle: there have not been enough villains introduced to make up the Masters of Evil, because of them being dead/in another dimension.

At the time of the film's release, here is a list of what could be culled from:

This is a terrible selection, as more of them are probably going to be dead, and some of them are hypothetical. Introducing 4-6 characters for the Masters of Evil would run contrary to the system that Marvel Studios has been built. Introducing one new villain would be fine, but 3-4 more would be terrible...especially with the cast list of TA2 reaching crazy levels on the protagonist front, to begin with.

And besides, the villain is going to be Thanos: Starlin confirmed that he reached a financial agreement with Marvel to license Thanos for GOTG and TA2. Considering he nearly filed a lawsuit against them for using Thanos in TA2, it seems very unlikely that they will renege on the agreement; or, if they did, that Starlin would keep quiet about it, considering he went public with his frustration with Thanos' usage in the first place.

Besides, introducing Kang in the film would complicate the mythology with time travel and alternate timelines; the mechanisms would have to be introduced in one of the solo films before being utilized in TA2.

Think for instance of the Tesseract:

-while not shown, we see its use in Thor when Odin transports his army to Jotunheim.
-In Captain America, we see it being used as an energy/weapon source, in addition to enabling transportation (relocating the Red Skull.)
-In IM2, Tony figures out how to successfully harness the energy from his father's materials.

Thus, when we arrive in The Avengers, we see that the Tesseract:

-is used as a weapon/energy source (SHIELD)
-enables inter-realm travel (Portal in New York.)

Again, we see that this device - inter dimensional travel - is built up slowly, over films. However, Kang is thrown into the mix, there would be problems, as he sure as hell would not be in Thor, and is unlikely to be in GOTG, with Thanos and the [possibly] the Collector as the main figures in the film.

So, the claims from Wardell are pure rubbish. He's been on called on for trolling before, and will continue to do so, like Jett on his site.

New Interview with Kevin Feige. Implies TA2 will have a subtitle Also says Joss Whedon already has character interactions better than the first movie.

Quote:

“Well Joss has said it on the record in the past, it’s not about going bigger. It’s not about, ‘And this time there will be five more explosions in this section!’ I mean certainly you want to up the ante, you want to exceed people’s expectations, but I think there are various ways of doing that and Iron Man 3 is a very, very good test for us of doing exactly that. The first movie we make after The Avengers has our hero spending more time out of the suit than any of the other movies; that seems potentially counterintuitive to some people, but that was exactly why we did it. We didn’t want to say, ‘Oh now it has to be bigger and he fights 100 people in armored suits.’ Yeah the action sequences are big, there’s more action in Iron Man 3 than in the other two movies, but at the same time it’s a much deeper and a more exploratory character journey on the heels of our biggest spectacle with The Avengers.”

“We’ve been consistent in talking about this leading up to The Avengers: what is most interesting to us and why we hired Joss Whedon in the first place is the interaction between the characters. That’s more fun to us than the massive action scenes that are gonna have to come with it that we’re gonna have to figure out, and we’re gonna have to be clever and raise the bar, but already the scenes that Joss has of just the characters sitting around and interacting are hilarious and are awesome and are moving and a notch or two above the first movie, and to me that’s where you wanna top yourself.”

“I would say that if you look at the trend of our upcoming movies, Iron Man 3 is the only one that has a number. I like Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi instead of Star Wars 2, Star Wars 3.”

* - Or whoever else is pulling Winter Soldier's strings, unless it's Redford's character, in which case just introduce a new one

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Introducing characters like Enchantress and Executioner can be done quickly and easily - they're old enemies of Thor's who agree to work against him. Then if they're needed in a Thor sequel, fully expand on their characters.

Thanos would basically use the Masters for two reasons - to attempt to get rid of the Avengers, but also to serve as a distraction, whilst he steals the Infinity Gauntlet from Asgard. This can be the big revelation at the end of the film - they defeat the Masters, but they discover it was all part of a larger scheme, and once they get to Asgard, it's too late - the Gauntlet is gone.

Loki's involvement can be down to Thanos forcing him, after he lost the Chitauri army and the Tesseract. The Other would send him, alongside Enchantress and Executioner, to Earth to orchestrate a break out at a SHIELD prison, and to trick those who escape into working together, to dispose of the Avengers.

Red Skull could be sent at the same time - him being stranded in space at the end of CA:TFA sets up an alliance with Thanos/The Other quite nicely.We know that The Leader and Abomination are in SHIELD custody, and it was said at some point Grillo was expected to be in Avengers 2, although the legitimacy of that could be questioned.

The Masters could work - this is just my personal ideas. But I guarantee Marvel wouldn't just re-use old villains and not introduce new ones. Not a strong enough threat otherwise.

The only flaw I can see here is the lack of a personal villain for some characters - Iron Man mainly, which can easily be fixed by introducing a new character. Or, bringing Killian back. Or maybe even Savin, or another Extremis henchman.

I would not trust anything from Wardell; other sites have pointed out the inconsistency in his methods and claims. First, why would there be a prison break? Marvel Universe is not structured like Batman: they do not fight common criminals, and the villains that are fought, are either dead or in another dimension.

think outside of the box. what's the easiest way to introduce a bunch of new villains for the Avengers to fight? you could pluck them from another dimension; like the Chitauri. or you could introduce them from a secret prison. you don't think S.H.I.E.L.D or the military would have such a location? i doubt that Emil Blonsky is in a regular prison. who says that they haven't been dealing with superpowered individuals in and outside of the U.S. (and locking them away)?